OK, I see what you're trying to say. This is begging the question. You don't get to cite "the public has a right to know" as evidence that "he's under a gag order" unless you assume that he is. There's no evidence of a gag order or any other enforcement action beyond the raid itself, nor does the linked article provide any.

You're making crazy leaps in logic. Nothing I said was meant to provide evidence that he's under a gag order. You said he has a right to speak up, I said that he may not. That's all.

Uh... no? It's not all. This started with you saying that the public had a right to know what happened at the raid. Then you brought up a hypothetical gag order. Am I really "crazy" to have assumed that you were citing the hypothetical gag order as a reason the public had a right to know about the raid?

Maybe you could back out and explain this again?